If you were wondering what Jack and others meant by saying that Donald Trump could well be a "disjunctive" president, now you know. The President and his party could not move one of their main legislative priorities through even one House of Congress. Is this the result of poor leadership? Perhaps, but the deeper problem is that the Republican coalition is badly divided on many issues. The election masked those divisions to some extent, but now they are front and center.

I want to make another point. The death of separation of powers when the White House and Congress are controlled by the same party has been exaggerated. Party polarization does mean that members of Congress often put party above their institutional authority. On the other hand, the same polarization means that a party need a high degree of internal unity to enact legislation. This means that any split in the majority party can be fatal. This does not mean that the President cannot get anything done, but the practical structural barriers to his agenda are significant.

It's easy being the backseat driver, particularly when you don't know how to drive. This epic failure is the result of an empty ideology and utter incompetence. In some ways, I wish it would have passed and become law.

If they were strategic, they would have crafted a bill that would have been subject to a filibuster. Then, they could have not only blamed dems but screamed even more about the evils of the ACA. Arguably, they would have payed little, if any, price. Let's face it, most of them really could care less about healthcare. It's the political advantage that counts.

They couldn't even do that.This epic failure, however, likely means this motley crew will become more extreme, not less, and, make no mistake, they will put something thru the endzone, however awful it will be.

Here's a variation on Will Roger's political observation of years ago that might apply: "I am a member of a disjunctive political party, I'm a Republican." Perhaps Speaker Ryan will reread Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to determine what he did wrong. Ryan might also take a peek at "Bonfire of the Vanities." Meantime, Democrats are proposing a toast for the failure of TrumScare to Americans: "To your health." Who will take the blame, the Narcissist or the Libertarian, or both?

BD: If you were wondering what Jack and others meant by saying that Donald Trump could well be a "disjunctive" president, now you know. The President and his party could not move one of their main legislative priorities through even one House of Congress.

Obama and the Democrats did the same thing with Obamacare after the Tea Party besieged their town halls and DC on 9/12. They rewrote that monstrosity is secret and released it 72 hours before a Christmas Eve night vote.

Is this the result of poor leadership? Perhaps, but the deeper problem is that the Republican coalition is badly divided on many issues. The election masked those divisions to some extent, but now they are front and center.

The division between the progressive-lite GOP establishment and the libertarian conservative GOP coalition is nothing new and was hardly hidden during the election. Trump campaigned against the GOP establishment to win the votes of the conservative and more than a few of the libertarian voters of the GOP coalition.

Once in power, the progressive-lite GOP establishment offered an Obamacare-lite bill which very few in the GOP electorate liked once they learned it was actually Obamacare with tweaks.

As a matter of both politics and policy, heaven knows what Trump was thinking when he aligned with the progressive-lite GOP establishment to push Obamacare-lite - both of which he just finished campaigning against. Senator Rand Paul gave Fox a good breakdown of the politics and policy here:

As a matter of leadership, the master of the deal has been an utter failure. Look to LBJ and Reagan for examples of how presidents assemble bipartisan coalitions in Congress to enact their policies. Obama could not assemble a bipartisan coalition to save his life. Trump cannot even assemble a partisan majority. The Donald is no Ronald.

I think this is less about Trump, frankly, and more about Congress. Maybe you want to call it a "disjunctive Congress"?

What's going on here is that the GOP has been a party at war with itself for better than 20 years. Maybe longer. This first became apparent back in the 90's, when the Republican party unexpectedly won control of Congress. And proved not so much unable to deliver on it's long standing campaign promises, as unwilling.

That was when the Republican base started to figure out that their representatives in Washington hadn't been fighting the good fight, and losing. They'd been taking dives. Campaigning on issues they didn't actually mean to deliver on, and contriving to let the Democrats prevail.

Ever since then it's been war, between the party's base, and its Washington establishment. The Tea party weren't waging a war with the Democrats. They were waging a war with the Republican establishment. Trump's deplorables, a not precisely overlapping group, equally are at war with the GOP establishment.

You can see this in things like the illegal immigration fight, where the GOP establishment keeps trying to float 'grand bargains', which get shot down by the base. Or the Obamacare "repeal" which was shaping up to be nothing of the sort, and went down in flames because too many Republican Representatives realized they dared not piss off their constituents by voting for it. You can see it in how the Democrats have managed to consistently confirm Justices who toe the party line, while the Republicans keep getting Souters.

Basically, it's the Establishment vs the Base, and while the Establishment needs the Base's votes and campaign labor, and so have to make a show of agreeing with them, they do NOT agree with them on policy. And do not mean to deliver what they're promising.

I'm not sure how this situation arose. Maybe some kind of Stockholm syndrome in the GOP caucus during those long years when the Democrats were firmly in control of Congress? Maybe they spent too long in Washington, and 'went native'?

However it came about, the locus of the problem is in Congress, not the White house, and it amounts to this: The Republican leadership in Congress are severely out of step with their own party's voters, and are constantly trying to do things the voters won't tolerate, and refusing to accomplish what the voters want done.

One side or the other is eventually going to win, but until that happens, the GOP is going to be very ineffectual on most issues.

Brett: I'm not sure how this situation arose. Maybe some kind of Stockholm syndrome in the GOP caucus during those long years when the Democrats were firmly in control of Congress? Maybe they spent too long in Washington, and 'went native'?

The GOP establishment has far more culturally in common with the Dem establishment than it does their own voters. The establishment types are generally from or quickly join the same mandarin class which runs the bureaucracy.

At this point, the Democrats have come to dominate the urban centers, they've become a relentlessly urban-centric party. The GOP, by default and inclination, has become the party of suburb and rural areas.

But the GOP leadership, particularly at the federal level, are almost to a man happy city dwellers. Culturally, they're Democrats. The culture clash between party Establishment and Base has become a policy clash, as well.

As a matter of leadership, the master of the deal has been an utter failure. Look to LBJ and Reagan for examples of how presidents assemble bipartisan coalitions in Congress to enact their policies.

Things have changed. The white South is now solidly Republican, there's computerized Gerrymandering, and there's a lot more self-sorting of liberals and conservatives. We're much more polarized.

And that makes it difficult to assemble bipartisan coalitions. Conservatives obscured this during the Obama administration for rhetorical reasons ("he didn't even try to talk to us!"). But they would have been tremendously upset had Republicans made deals with Obama, and they don't want Trump making deals with Democrats now either.

That's the world we live in now. Given that fact, we should eliminate the filibuster and move towards a parliamentary system (which is what countries who weren't founded by slaveholders moved to long ago). Just have the President's party run on an agenda and then move it through Congress.

But you're never going to see bipartisan coalitions like the ones that passed the major LBJ agenda items ever again.

"The President and his party could not move one of their main legislative priorities through even one House of Congress.

Obama and the Democrats did the same thing with Obamacare after the Tea Party besieged their town halls and DC on 9/12. They rewrote that monstrosity is secret and released it 72 hours before a Christmas Eve night vote."

One difference is that Obama got his through. Actually, that's the salient difference Gerald pointed to in the first place.

This 'betrayed by our Establishment' is nonsense. You don't get much more establishment than Trump's cabinet. The GOP 'establishment' that extreme partisans run down are just party leaders that realize that what extreme partisans want them to do would make the GOP a minority party.

Mr W: One difference is that Obama got his through. Actually, that's the salient difference Gerald pointed to in the first place.

We are in mid March. When we get to Christmas Eve, you can do your land speed comparisons with Obamacare.

If I were the GOP, I would do tax and regulatory reform this year and wait for the remaining insurers to bail from the 2018 Obamacare exchanges this fall. We obviously need a crisis to move the GOP establishment.

The nihilism was very apparent, but the bill still had a good chance of passing. The polls showed the bill was a real stinker. Analysis by the CBO showed it would have been detrimental to the lives of millions (but, of course, how can one put a price tag on freedom).

Of course, both Trump and Ryan blamed Obama. You really can't make this stuff up.

It is symbolic of the long decay of a political party. Hopefully, that decay will not bring us all down.

The Republicans are divided and the Congress/executive have split purposes here etc. but that was present when the PPACA was passed too. It was not "rammed down" anyone's throats. It took an extended period of time, a lot of work, including the POTUS playing an important role in the process. So, do think part of this is a result of the flaws of the Republicans' approach, who is in the White House, their desire to do it so quickly etc. It hurt too that the PPACA was demonized so much, so a more long term approach in killing parts of it was seen as simply bad form.

I would not at this early point make some final conclusions. As to what 'never' will happen again, when it happened in the lifetime of more than one person here, I also do not wish to make any conclusions. Things ebb/flow. What will happen ten, twenty years from now particularly in that regard is far from clear. It is quite possible, e.g., some sort of re-alignment of the parties will occur. etc.

"Straddle"? Imagine Gene Autry singing: "I'm back in the straddle agains ,,,, " I understand sales of "The Art of the Deal" are spiking since Trump's inauguration that may lead to creating new jobs: more standup comedians who'll search through this BS for comparative material with Trump's non-performance as President. "Just who is this guy 'Art'?" Imagine Trump and Ryan, hand in hand, singing "Just a 'Closer' walk with thee." Or has Brett been doing "standup" here all along?

The lesson should be yours, and it's similar to the one people who say 'Nixon was a progressive' Ideological position is relative. Nixon signed environmental and other legislation that were passed with veto proof majorities. He was a politician in a relatively liberal time, he offered the most politically viable option for conservatives at the time. Remember Ryan is Speaker of the House and the Freedom Caucus numbers a mere 30.

There's a reason why conservatives voted for Nixon. The 'law and order' candidate, the 'honorable peace' candidate, the 'silent majority' and 'southern strategy' candidate was Buckley's quintessential 'most right, viable candidate that could win' at the time.

The two biggest vote getters in the recent presidential election promised 1. To keep Obamacare, but with some tweaks and 2. To repeal it but replace it with something that kept all the 'good' features. There was a candidate that called for flat repeal and embrace of non government, free market approach, Johnson who got a negligible amount of the vote. No wonder GOP House members aren't rushing in that direction.

It was not truly all non-government, free market then, it won't be now.

Not surprising many didn't vote for him. Anyway, if you are going to "repeal and replace with all the good features," why would you rely on the same people who called the whole thing the spawn of the devil? It's like trusting priests to repeal and retain the good things of same sex marriage or something.

OTOH, yes, some people have this fictional view of the presidency, included in the label "Obamacare," which was a result of the Senate (with some presidential involvement) crafting a bill and the House tinkering with it some. Which was not Medicare for all either. Thus, both halves of the word is misleading.

More so some fictional view of the person in the White House now and his great deal-making abilities, perhaps helped by the fact he has an attractive wife.*

It's true, mind you, when you are opposing a fictional construct ["Obamacare"], it might be easier to foresee something accomplished in this respect. Thus, the joke about replacing it with something called the "Affordable Care Act." It's funny since it's kinda true. But, it's hard -- there is so much negativity here about the law, hard core "tea party" or "freedom caucus" (everyone else hates freedom) members & high expectations that only going so far is hard here. Government is hard.

SPAM I AM! repeats his "colon-chuckle" which might suggest to some a more apt anatomical nickname for SPAM but this is a "family blog" (e.g., progressive). SPAM's obviously now firmly entrenched with the House's Freedom Caucus (aka anarcho libertarians). The rest of the Republicans are progressives in SPAM's current political world (childless).

Trump's Time interview included his boast of more covers than anyone else. Alas, Trump learned that Nixon beats him, but the editor reminded Trump that Nixon had a second (but shortened) term. Maybe Trump can make a Playboy centerfold. Back to SPAM, this anecdote may serve as his proof that since Nixon was a progressive, so is Trump. Once again Mr. W has served up to SPAM his own derriere on Nixon as a progressive.

Remember that Obamacare was deliberately designed not to take substantial effect until after Obama ran for reelection. In 2012, Obama continued to pathologically lie about his creature and the Democrat media was hardly going to correct him. Of course, the GOP nominated the one candidate who supported the progenitor to Obamacare and the least able to take Obama to task for his monstrosity.

Clinton ran on repairing Obamacare (no one supports this abortion as it exists) and won a plurality over Trump. A majority of the vote went to the GOP nominee and two more Republicans running under the Libertarian and independent tickets.

"A majority of the vote went to the GOP nominee and two more Republicans running under the Libertarian and independent tickets."

As I've demonstrated that GOP nominee himself did not call for a flat repeal, he called for it to be repealed while being replaced by something that kept many aspects while adding extravagant promises that run counter to what the Freedom Caucus wants. Hardly anyone voted for what the Freedom Caucus wants.

Gerard N. Magliocca over at Concurring Opinions blog argued a recent copyright opinion (concerning cheerleader uniforms) of the Supreme Court was badly written. Justice Breyer wrote the dissent; the appendix had a few photos to demonstrate. Two involve lamps with cats represented (one a figurine next to it; one as part of the base ... this factors into his approach). Meow meow.

Every single one of Trump's speeches included a promise to repeal Obamacare and "replace it with something great." Supporting a bill keeping 80% of Obamacare and rearranging the rest is neither repeal or replacement.

After the voters lent the GOP the House in 2010, the Republicans voted for a pure repeal bill dozens of times. EVERY GOP Congress critter candidate ran on these votes and the voters gave them the Senate for their efforts. The Freedom Caucus wants the GOP Congress to enact that bill AS THEY PROMISED.

Trump never provided any details of what his "something great" replacement would involve. Your quotes above are a good example of this.

Like Obama and yourself, Trump is likely clueless about the policy issues involved and the problems caused by government misdirection of the health insurance and thus the health care industries.

An economy is made up of businesses providing goods and services for which consumers are willing to pay to satisfy their individual and family needs and wants. No bureaucracy ever invented can keep up with all of these moving parts, thus every government direction of the economy f_cks up the provision of goods and services satisfying the needs and wants of consumers. You always get a misallocation of resources to compel people to buy what the government wants or to prevent them from buying what the government disapproves.

The problem is government direction itself, not which party enacted the direction or a poor choice of direction.

"The problem is government direction itself, not which party enacted the direction or a poor choice of direction."

Libertarians are incapable of governance. Perhaps the heartless don't have need for healthcare. Imagine if the Freedom Caucus were in control of the government. By the Bybee [expletives deleted], how many of the Freedom Caucus are women?

You always get a misallocation of resources to compel people to buy what the government wants or to prevent them from buying what the government disapproves.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:37 PM

lol I had a great conversation with a local Jax Beach moron about this yesterday. He hates Obamacare more than he likes living. Literally. He doesn't want to be forced to buy insurance. Just the other day he went to the doctor and paid for it out of his own pocket. Why should he be forced to pay for healthcare for some single mother with 5 kids (I didn't ask the moron the race of that hypothetical woman, but we all know what he's talking about, right?)? So I asked the moron what he'll do if he needs healthcare that he can't afford. I asked him several times, in fact. He ignored me and continued to blather on about not needing insurance. Good times...

I have no problem with a true single payer health insurance system where the government collects a consumption tax to provide vouchers to people to shop for free market health insurance of their choice. Apart from preventing fraud and ensuring insurers had enough money on hand to pay claims, all government provisions and direction of health insurance and health care would be abolished. No free riders and everyone can purchase the health insurance which best fits their needs and wants.

Progressives would oppose such a system because their goal is first and foremost to direct our lives and redistribute our wealth, not to provide whatever "free" good or service they are offering at the time. The latter is simply a mechanism to achieve the former.

Maureen Dowd's column is up at NYTimes online. It's in the form of a letter to The Donald, her long time acquaintance in NYC. Maureen gets a little rowdy as she paints The Donald dowdy. She didn't brand him a loser explicitly but reading between her lines makes the point.

Recall President Trump telling his base (which Brett can confirm) that they'll be winning so much, they'll get tired of winning. But there are no wins as yet. (Brett can count them.) Will Trump's base get tired of losing or is that just a continuation of how they perceive their lives. The Freedom Caucus seemed to welcome Trump. In the TrumScare negotiations Trump made concessions to the Freedom Caucus, but not enough concessions to make an artful deal. And that wall that Mexico was going to pay for has run into some delays, especially financial. But Trump's base needs a wailing wall to lament their the losses. But much of the base has some good news as Obamacare remains in effect for their healthcare; they're going to need it.

Progressives would oppose such a system because their goal is first and foremost to direct our lives and redistribute our wealth, not to provide whatever "free" good or service they are offering at the time. The latter is simply a mechanism to achieve the former.# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:39 PM

The fact that Ryancare wasn't anything like your plan is a pretty good indicator that rightwing nutcases wouldn't go for it, either.

SPAM I AM!'s concept of single payer health insurance focused on the free market is both brainless and hearless. Providing access only if you can afford it and the extent of coverage in a true free market system would for many be no access. SPAM's view is:

"No free riders and everyone can purchase the health insurance which best fits their needs and wants."

No "free riders" would exclude many children and even their parents in the real world. Who determines the needs and wants of those seeking health insurance to be purchased? The free market insurers based upon what the insured can afford? How well has this free market worked in the past? S[AM is brainless and heartless as he walks the libertarian yellow brick road, a self-made man who lifted himself up by his own bootstraps. SPAM still thinks the late 19th century The Gilded Age were America's best days. Yes, SPAM is brainless and heartless.

"I want to be clear," she concluded. "This is not on President Trump. No one expected a businessman to completely understand the nuances, the complicated ins and outs of Washington and its legislative process. How would he know which individuals upon whom he would be able to rely?"

"We had no way of knowing" is a usual Republican line back to the Bush43 days at least. Health insurance reform, like Iraq, is hard! Live and learn, you know? "Completely" understand. Understand much at all. Tomato/oe.

Oh, I understood SPAM's words, especially SPAM's code words, such as "vouchers," "free market," "choice." Yes, SPAM was "hound whistling." By the Bybee [expletives deleted], on whose back does a consumption tax fall? Perhaps SPAM's method could be utilized for vouchers for indigent defendants to shop in the free market for criminal defense counsel? How might SPAM fare with that what with his anarcho libertarian mode?

The word "regressive" is what attracts anarcho libertarians to a consumption tax. So the 1% have more dollars available to augment their vouchers than would the poor and the balance of the 99%. SPAM remains brainless and heartless.

George Shultz was on Face the Nation today talking about foreign policy. He said a healthy America is good for the world as leadership is important. I would add that having healthy Americans makes a healthy America to serve as a world leader, not only making the world healthier but safer for America.

The Euro-socialists, if not most of their clueless American cousins, long ago discovered a tiny percentage of the population cannot support a government spending about half of GDP on a massive well paid bureaucracy and welfare state. This is why they all have hidden, large and inescapable VAT taxes reaching into everyone's pockets.

A consumption tax is not regressive. The more you spend on yourself, the more you pay in taxes. Those buying $100,000 luxury Tesla battery cars will pay ten times as much as a poor person buying a used car.

I prefer a very visible sales tax because people who see what they are paying are far more likely to keep their government's spending under control.

The story of the defeat of the GOP Obamacare-lite bill without the Politico's Democrat spin:

The GOP House and then GOP Senate had passed a clean repeal of Obamacare dozens of times when the Democrat Senate and then Obama was there to stop the repeal. Every GOP Congress critter campaigned on the promise of repeal.

However, when the voters gave the GOP the White House and Congress to enact that repeal, the GOP establishment wrote another bill in secret which preserved 80% of Obamacare and only tweaked the finanancial parts. Most of Obamacare's systemic flaws forcing the individual health insurance market into a death spiral were kept in place by this Obamacare-lite legislation.

After campaigning against the GOP establishment and Obamacare, Trump betrayed his voters by supporting the establishment Obamacare-lite bill.

In a true and very rare example of political courage, the House Freedom Caucus defied their president and party establishment's threats and insisted on enacting the repeal legislation on which they all campaigned.

Congress critter Jim Jordan, leader of the House Freedom Caucus, offered a replica of the 2015 Obamacare repeal bill the GOP House and Senate enacted and Obama vetoed in 2015. The GOP establishment refused to act on the bill in committee.

Will a member of the Freedom Caucus try to force a floor vote on the bill with a discharge petition, forcing the GOP leadership to explain why what they voted for in 2015 is no longer sufficient in 2017?

SPAM I AM! lauds the political courage of the House FreeDumb K-K-K-Kaukus. SPAM's history fails to reveal that the scores of efforts of Republicans pre-2016 campaign were to repeal, but not replace, Obamacare. With the 2016 campaign, Trump became a populist, pushing, unlike his GOP establishment opponents, not only repeal but to replace Obamacare with a better and cheaper and with more coverage healthcare plan. Other Republicans started picking up on repeal and replace. Ryan's TrumpScare bill was designed to repeal and replace, with the endorsement of Trump who apparently forgot what he had promised his base on a better, broader replacement. The earlier efforts to only repeal Obamacare were only political showcase efforts because President Obama had the veto. Consider the populist reactions to Ryan's TrumpScare reflected in polls. The FreeDumb K-K-K-Kaukus' campaigning back in 2010 and thereafter to repeal did not reflect the changes that were taking place in the minds of the public throughout the nation more favorable with the experience of Obamacare. That was just plain dumb.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Trump was never truly a populist but appealed to the "know nothings." At some point in time the "know nothings" will know something.